Will this become the History Thread?

Bungy Williams
5th August 2005, 19:46
Read the two excerpts below and then consider if, in 2016, we will have a Royal Navy at all:


1. It was stated in Parliament last week that since 1996, 47 Royal Navy vessels have been withdrawn from service and a further 5 placed at very low readiness. It was also stated that before the end of 2005 a further four ships would be withdrawn and another placed at very low readiness. These figures do not include vessels in refit.

2. The process of designating ships to receive the reduced level of support referred to by the National Audit Office enables the Royal Navy to maintain its ability to mount a medium scale operation at short notice and maximise its ability to undertake priority peacetime tasks. The Royal Navy ships placed on reduced support status are as follows: HMS Invincible, Ark Royal, Albion, Cardiff, Exeter, Liverpool, Cumberland, Grafton, Marlborough, Monmouth, Richmond, St. Albans, Sutherland, Atherstone, Brecon, Cottesmore, Dulverton, Middleton, Pembroke, Penzance, Ramsey, Shoreham, Walney, and Leeds Castle.

Bungy Williams
5th August 2005, 23:40
Just to amplify the impact of the above statements.

I joined the RN in 1971 and left in 1997, of all the vessels and establishments I served on during my time, only HMS EXETER remains. She has been named in the second segment as deserving of 'reduced support'.

This is an absolute national disgrace along with such sad passings as the death of the UK merchant fleet, the demise of the UK deep sea fishing fleet and, last but not least, the total annihilation of the UK shipbuilding capability.

As an Island race, we rely on the sea as our primary line of supply and communication, how can past and present governments be so narrow visioned as to allow such crimes against the nation to occur?

John Rogers
6th August 2005, 01:06
Its a sad note alright, who in the hell is going to do the fighting if there is a conflict, rent a soldier, sailor, airman they suppose or out-source or contract it. (Don't ask the French for any help.)

thunderd
6th August 2005, 02:05
I suspect they will all sit in their underground bunkers and fire intercontinental missiles at each other. Perhaps I should say the politicians will sit in their underground bunkers, we the public, will just have to take our chances.

Paul UK
6th August 2005, 10:03
I agree with everybody as to the state of our Navy after all we pay for it, but taking it back a peg, if we ask a sailor to go to war to protect us and in donig so put their own life at risk should we not as a nation give them the best equipment available.

Paul (Cloud)

Guest
6th August 2005, 13:54
Total agreement Paul, but I think you'll find that the MoD's perception is that if you've signed up, you've agreed to be a disposable commodity. Hell we couldn't even send our lot to Iraq with enough body armour to go around.

Did anyone at the MoD care? I seriously doubt it. All branches of government have a great escape clause for every cock-up they make. It's called the risk assessment. As long as you sign a check box to say you've though about how everything could go pear shaped, and decided to gamble on it being okay, you've done your bit.

Personally I'd like to be the guy doing the risk assessment on the case for keeping nuclear waste in the cellar of the Houses of Parliament.

Dave

Paul UK
7th August 2005, 13:04
Is your name really dave Guy Fawkes, I expect their Bunker there is big enough for the requirements.

Paul

frannysea
4th May 2007, 09:20
The rumour mill is rife within the RFA , that the RN will be taking over the RFA bay class boats,( 4 BRAND NEW SHINEY ONES) due to the loss of the above mentioned naval ships,and the RN manpower (SHORESIDE), we are also laying up some ships, scrapping others, the future is not bright. If they do take them over, it will be interesting to see what the manning levels will be under a white ensign, compared to the levels they are currently sailing at under the RFA ensign.